An addition to the income of the assessee was made by the AO due to unexplained money in the bank account of the assessee. The assesee explained how the amount was received for a land acquisition by the government and after withdrawal, he could not deposit it because of demonetisation. The matter remained unrepresented before the Commissioner (Appeals) because of a miscommunication and an order was passed ex parte.

The tribunal held that on examining form 35, it was discovered that the assessee had accurately stated that the email address listed there was that of his acquaintance. The assessee’s claim that he was misinformed and did not appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to notices not being delivered to his authorized agent therefore seemed to be true. The assessee had only sent one letter outlining the source of cash deposits to the assessing officer, and no follow-up correspondence was filed. As a result, the assessee’s argument that his case had not been adequately presented to and understood by the Assessing Officer was valid. A fresh opportunity must be given to the assessee for making his case.  (AY.2017-18)